Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 0/65 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Give your one best shot - against evolution
John
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 224 (12582)
07-02-2002 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Fred Williams
07-01-2002 5:50 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
I'm talking about evidence for large-scale, mud-to-man evolution. Joe's example is the opposite. It's man-to-mud de-evolution.

No it isn't. Its man-succeptable-to-malaria to man-with-resistance-to-malaria adaptation.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Fred Williams, posted 07-01-2002 5:50 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Fred Williams, posted 07-05-2002 12:51 PM John has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 224 (12751)
07-04-2002 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by blitz77
07-04-2002 8:52 AM


Thanks for the lesson in probability.
Now a lesson in reality.
Stanley Miller synthesized organic molecules in a jar. Since then, the experiment has been repeated with some variations and practically every basic molecular component has been produced. And this against your odds-- ridiculously against your odds. IE. your odds are WRONG. This is called experiment, and it trumps speculation and unbridled mathematics.
http://www.ultranet.com/~jkimball/BiologyPages/A/AbioticSynthesis.html
quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
A portion of a chain of code letters in the gene, say -A-C-T-G-T-C-C-A-G-, could contain three three-letter genetic words as follows: -A-C-T*G-T-C*C-A-G-. But if the reading frame is shifted to the right one or two letters, two other genetic words are found in the middle of this portion, as follows: -A*C-T-G*T-C-C*A-G- and -A-C*T-G-T*C-C-A*G-. And this is just what the virus does. A string of 390 code letters in its DNA is read in two different reading frames to get two different proteins from the same portion of DNA. Could this have happened by chance? Try to compose an English sentence of 390 letters from which you can get another good sentence by shifting the framing of the words one letter to the right. It simply can't be done. The probability of getting sense is effectively zero.

False analogy. English has six times more letters than there are amino acids in your chains.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by blitz77, posted 07-04-2002 8:52 AM blitz77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by blitz77, posted 07-06-2002 5:13 AM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 136 of 224 (12895)
07-06-2002 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by blitz77
07-06-2002 5:13 AM


quote:
Originally posted by blitz77:
BTW, in order for chance to create the simple proteins, there has to be a high enough concentration of amino acids, and for the amino acids to link up against the energy gradient, and for the probability that all of them are left-handed (which, for a 100-amino acid protein, would be 1/2^100).
Can you back up that probability calculation?
I've seen calculations like this before and they usually neglect a few factors
Like:
1) There should have been loads of energy around at the time. The planet was young and very violent-- volcanoes, etc.
2) You don't have to create a protein by chance, only a small self-replicating precursor, a catalyst. From there on the dice are loaded.
3) What is the time-frame and base volume of 'soup' used in this calculation? These reactions would have been occurring over the whole surface of the Earth for millions or hundreds of millions of years. Again, a few good molecules and the dice are loaded.
4) Several thoughts about left-handedness.
There may be a REASON for it besides chance. from Nature magazine
or:
Polarized light
Even if the above is incorrect, there may be a biochemical reason for left-handedness. I recall reading a paper suggesting that left-handed molecules function marginally better than right-handed one. Selection takes over. Sadly, I cannot find this paper.
Even if the above is incorrect, if the first proteins happened to be left-handed, they could have simple flooded the market drowning out their right-handed siblings.
Basically, things aren't as random as they appear.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by blitz77, posted 07-06-2002 5:13 AM blitz77 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by gene90, posted 07-06-2002 1:46 PM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 224 (12911)
07-06-2002 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by gene90
07-06-2002 1:46 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:

Interesting that you bring that up because meteoric AA's *are* almost exclusively left-handed.

Right, the link I posted labeled 'polarized light' discusses this and gives a reason why.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by gene90, posted 07-06-2002 1:46 PM gene90 has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 140 of 224 (12914)
07-06-2002 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Fred Williams
07-06-2002 2:51 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
LOL! And here you have the 2nd common objection to information, that it does not apply to complex biological systems!

I agree with you, Fred, that systems theory (or information theory) is pertinent to biological systems. ... a discussion of the connection for those interested
I do not agree that information theory contradicts evolution. (also discussed in the link above).
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Fred Williams, posted 07-06-2002 2:51 PM Fred Williams has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 160 of 224 (13058)
07-08-2002 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by peter borger
07-08-2002 8:15 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Most genes can be knocked out without killing the organism, and a lot of genes have been demonstrated not to affect the fitness of the organism at all.
A staggering number of brain cells are redundant as well but you don't want to go picking out the extras. Maybe they are back-up systems, spare parts, or maybe we just don't what they do. This fact does not negate neurology.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by peter borger, posted 07-08-2002 8:15 AM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by nator, posted 07-08-2002 12:46 PM John has not replied
 Message 182 by peter borger, posted 07-09-2002 11:44 PM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 184 of 224 (13243)
07-10-2002 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by peter borger
07-09-2002 11:44 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear maiden,
Fortunately, I recogonised your fallacy. In logic this type of reasoning is called an "extension", and belongs to the type of "faulty analogies". A faulty analogy is an inappropriate comparison or an attempt to compare two or more dissimilar things. Recently a scientist uttered a similar faulty analogy: "You can't accept one part of science because it brings you good things like electricity and penicillin, and throw away another part because it brings you some things you don't like about the origin of life". It is a very subtle type of fallacies and eludes most people.
Have a nice day,
Peter

Sorry, no dice. To have a faulty analogy, you must first prove the relevant dissimilarities outweigh the relevant similarities. You made no effort to do this. Otherwise, you just have an analogy, which is valid. It is a very subtle difference and eludes most people.
Have a nice day,
themaiden
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by peter borger, posted 07-09-2002 11:44 PM peter borger has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 208 of 224 (13411)
07-12-2002 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by SAGREB
07-12-2002 6:14 AM


quote:
Originally posted by ZAURUZ:
When reptiles evolved to mammals....
Did reptiles evolve into mammals? The best information-- granted not high quality info-- I have found is that mammals evolved from a weird group of reptile-like mammals which arose somewhat comtemporaneously with the reptiles.
This doesn't defeat your argument, but it does push the common ancestry further back and allow for more time to make the changes. It also means that mammals may not have evolved from egg-layers at all. Just a thought...
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by SAGREB, posted 07-12-2002 6:14 AM SAGREB has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024